Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 15, 2014 5:30am-6:01am PDT

5:30 am
up after the fact we'll issue a stop order stop and go back in again. this is the problem in the field with building department vs. preservation. we are not preservation inspectors building intersections but on the applicant i saw some of the preservation documents on buildings and usually gives a list of things to be done and thoip but that's all spelled out so i think 0 that's obviously gone through and realized after the fact >> but commissioners we might want to ask a slightly different question mr. tomatoes there's a
5:31 am
plaster all we heard was lead paint perhaps we need to ask a question first. >> so shall we take public comment. i see how many people wish to speak under. just two? okay, please step forward >> before i start by 3 minutes i get that? i want to correct the title of the demolition permit it's a type of 2 building i mean this is a type of 2, of
5:32 am
concrete construction the whole building is concrete. not a type of two. i'm rubke at that i'm a neighbor i live one house away from the tennis courts on 30th avenue. we had two communities meetings there were 40 people at unfortunately, this hearing has been rescheduled 6 times. so first off oh, is this working. thank you. i want to go over the conditions of the courts that's why i'm opted to taking down this toilet building it's in much worse
5:33 am
shape. they're the is for the tense court this is a systemic it goes down the length of the courts the entire for the courts. this is what happens all of the lines i want to put this out there first. that's one of the reasons to have the building renovated. i'm an architect i've done more than 60 millions of work around san francisco i canned through how many toilet rooms i've had to renovate. i did this in 5 to 10 minutes i measured the long and short of it you have a entry it's 4 feet wide it's 51 at the columns, however, the door base makes
5:34 am
that 47 and a half or so inch so someone took a bush hammer you could take it an inch away and if you redo the courts you'll have to sever out 15 and a quarter inch per foot that's the ada cleaners along the public sidewalks you could have brought up the 3 inches so this building could have been made assessable. a couple of things and my last comment is about this sensible abatement their abatement consultants that put together abatement documents throughout san francisco and i quote this is your response not a typical abatement practice to bush
5:35 am
hammer out lead. and i even i'm going to stop there are and on a historic and design standpoint the women's toilet opens up under the poach it's not a good design. i hope you keep the existing building >> tennis courts are not designed a quarter inch per you court. >> you only have to feature feather out he 10 to 14 feet not on the court. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi thank you for your time i'm a neighbor i live in the house or i own the how is it is directly adjacent to the restrooms i sent a lbe letter on december 10th i hope you received that outlines why i
5:36 am
think this should be the exposition permit should be denied. the restroom structure was constructed by the progress administration and we recognize that. the historic review that should have occurred prior to the permit being issued was done in a curry way. i was interested in renovating my house next to the courts and so to do that as an individual i know that i have to deal with the issue of preservation i did the research and find out this court was put in 1938. in may of 2013 at one of the meetings were 40 people attend i raise my hand and asked is that
5:37 am
a dpa building i raised the issue before the work took place and alerted the planning department also in june of 2013 to this issue where i exchanged e-mails and it's just a bathroom was the response i had to do the work as an individual and raised that with the rec and park department other issues why this design for this site well, we only have two sites to save on costs and the costs to renovate this bathroom. this is the resolution authorizing the demolition and replacements of the building we're spending $390,000 to tear
5:38 am
down this building that was never thought about in the context. it will cost over $300,000 we're spending 4 hundred thousand to tear the building down so if we pause tonight and deny this permit we can do things like save money to fix the cracks in the tense court and fix the broken retaining walls and not using a one-size-fits-all design for a specific neighborhood we can reopen the community feedback process. what mr. yee said their outreach process their no obligation for the planning department homeowners have to invite the neighbors there's no process that requires the planning
5:39 am
department to do that - >> times up. >> and appreciate that mr. yee spoke for a little bit longer he never said we z don't have the money to tear it down. >> i have a question. yeah. >> where you at both of theometers. >> i was not i bought any you how's after the first meeting. >> if i have to invite. >> i have a question i want an answer to the meeting that you raised our hand and asked about whether they knew in the dpa built the building what was the principle concern a lot of people go to meetings and sit quietly were other people
5:40 am
voicing concerns. >> they were talking about the modern design and in addition, i asked about the historic aspect because i went through this and the appellant was there as well and he was very interested in the preservation aspect as well. >> okay. thank you. thank you >> is there any additional public comment we'll start our rebuttal. mr. kelly you have 3 minutes >> there was no notice given to the neighbors of those meetings and then they put a sign up on the fence saying they're going to renovate the restroom that's when they decided to have meetings with the community and
5:41 am
go through the thing. all the meetings did not accomplish anything expect getting rid of the electrically lose on the wall. the slope for both issues is going to be the same. mr. yee states they were grinding the concrete they were just a second hammering it. they demolished the structure so they can consider it xooshd so they can demolish it. thauflz. it's sad what they did it was a historic structure we tell him it was historic they only want to get their projects done and move on and we have to live with the stuff. so i'm saying does not let them
5:42 am
demolish this building. thank you >> okay. mr. yee. >> okay. i appreciate all the input and questions. i schism i am responsive points that were not sftdz first of all, the courts the resurfacing will be done you been through a like that. >> sheet fashion a coating on top of those layers it didn't require a total replacement of the asphalt and the fund can't be used towards the court so there's no onset in the restroom costs in regard. in terms of the knowledge of whether it's a dwp building at
5:43 am
the time the department was asked we had no knowledge of the historic native of that but only after an research was done. thirdly, this is on the overhead and this is the design that mr. wall did show. the department did do the currency of reviewing that and considering that, however, it didn't take into account the radius that's needed at the landing at the point of entry the threshold at the men and women is 5 to 6 inches in order to provide the slope at the present time, you'll need 10 to
5:44 am
15 feet that will encroach into the court. i'm sorry. okay. and then i think i want to emphasize the position to renovate or replace the restroom again that process was widely published for the public to provide input for the restroom to be renovated or replaced. and lastly dollars support for the position. i have read e-mails i'm happy to provide that from two neighbors that are in support of the project. and - >> i have a question would be a the department phone number not ton its own look at whether this project has a historic correction you said it wasn't
5:45 am
until the appeal was filed would that have not occurred naturally. >> we rely on the sequa process all of our projects have to go through sequa. >> but didn't this when you get a permit for this didn't it get planning review. >> absolutely. planning requires a historical evaluation for any historic preservation over 50 years. even the shaky had >> actually yes you're right the planning department did review it. and they gave us purview to
5:46 am
review the project lies with the planning department >> no, i understand that, however, the hr e wasn't done until after the permit was issued. >> no, no, no there was additional information brought forgot by the appellant that required additional sort of analysis that was requested by the planning department so it wasn't until after the planning department looked at more into it they requested the hr e when we went through the planning process they didn't require that. >> so there was a cat addiction in place we issued. that's the subsequent of events >> i have one more question that plan shows the width of this building but your new
5:47 am
modular building is at 12 feet something isn't it. you have two building types one is wireder than the other one the contrary mode that's 12 feet something but this one shows 8 photo >> that's right there's a privacy wall that's part of the new construction that extends out. >> the other way. >> well, a actually in both directions it didn't impact the use of the court. >> in addition we were trying to stay within the existing building footprint. >> i have a question during the meeting when the owner asked you whether it was a dpa building
5:48 am
did you not think to research that matter. >> yeah. absolutely and i did do research and i was not able to find evidence it was a dp structure. this was myself as a untrained kind of, you know, person in search for this type of information >> the concern would be if the neighbors had done homework and you're doing a sizeable amount of work maybe you should have looked at the question regarding the historic value of this structure. correct? so you made the decision not to do that >> no actually this information was brought up at the community meetings but there was no documentation that supported that. >> so how did we found it was a
5:49 am
dw building. >> after a professional competent consultant. >> thank you. you can sit down marry anything further mr. t. mr. duffey anything further. commissioners, if you don't have questions the matter is submitted >> dollars one question we can't ask what did the arts commission do this to this. >> because they're not here and because of their role this is a group that is looking at the public art of the city but they're the designer of all public works and if i don't do what they say you don't get
5:50 am
approval. >> that's where the funding source is what do you mean? >> they took a part of a sentence they all public works requires people for design of the building. >> okay. >> commissioners my concern is this was you want to talk about the arts commission also. >> mr. t would like to. >> all right. >> no disrespect to that point to clarify again, the art commission last month was contingent on your action as well. it was not absolutely so the approval the design was contingent on your action. okay. thank you >> did they push the modern
5:51 am
design? the arts commission? >> i would defer to my colleague here. >> thank you. i'm sorry commissioner honda >> no, no i'm hearing both sides. it appears it was this has been poorly planned and managed and executed. if this was a standards permit holder that came and said oh, i took off the part that made it historic the city needs to be accountability to the same standard we hold our homeowners and public to. they've taken off the standards and removed part of the floout that led abatement requires a jack hammer that's a more of a
5:52 am
finesse thing it was potentially done to fine this demolition of this project. and so that's my concern >> i without knowing the entire process for the people involved i personally wouldn't go it was done to do this but it's possible. i'm uncomfortable with the project for the same reasons that commissioner honda articulated. i i mean, i have to say in looking at the appeal on paper it's just a bathroom and i think one of the public speakers said
5:53 am
this i listens to what people said it's important to have to attention to all the historic buildings and the contributors to historic structures and bases i don't have the vocabulary but we need to preserve what we have with we see radical changes in the city and hold onto the good if this has the potential to be renovated i think the city needs to do its job in attempting to move in that direction >> i would come down on a middle ground which will probably have to make the same motion but if i had to pick and it was adorable between the two designs that were approved to me the traditional design looks
5:54 am
better than the more than one it looks like an eyesore. the most offensive design is a complete disregard for the displacement it adds insult to injure in my mind. i have very big problems. i don't know that picking between the two designs is really the solution here. i don't know. i think it needs to go back >> or continue for more discussions from the neighborhood and potentially reviving this current bath if it costs more to the contrary design let's stay the same and
5:55 am
all the character defining elements are gone but - >> there's an effort to restore what was improperly removed but i think what's before us do we uphold the permit or not i don't know we can restore anything commissioner honda. >> you want them to restore. >> it's up to the community to continue to press for a historic rebuild because that's not something we can impose but the community can advocate and organize for our role is to say the process is not right ambassador and it didn't respect the communities desires and certainly not the historic elements of the building.
5:56 am
so i think it needs to start again. >> so do you want to have a motion to continue. >> would that be. >> would that be the protocol to continue it for 90 days. >> right if you want to encourage for public process and dialog that's certainly one of the ways to do that. >> i will support that with the understanding it needs to change. >> yeah. >> this is not acceptable as is. >> 90 days acceptable or push it. i'd say push it forward not more than 90 days that will linger >> is there a motion? >> i don't know how to say 90
5:57 am
days. >> let's pick a date we're looking at - >> to the part there. >> i think they want to - >> july 16th. >> july 16th? is that right? >> yeah. >> so is it the motion. >> 60 days. >> commissioner honda. >> yeah. july 16th and the departments i guess further study and have more community involvement in the community design of the bathroom. >> i want to get specifically what if anything you want brought back. >> so the 90 days the permit
5:58 am
holder does a studied in regards to the floout since it's been gone the potential replacement of some historic value or perspire historic value. i guess >> i guess we can say the acknowledgement of the prior historic structure. >> so the focus is to give the permit holder and the rec and park department look at ways to bring back the proposal. >> that will use the current you proposal that was significantly prior to the jackhammer. >> can i raise one issue i gather the arts commission is going to approve what we do; is that correct. >> can we have a arts
5:59 am
representative here. >> the arts commission hadn't taken action so what role will they play and advise. >> i can research that i don't have the answer to that. so if you'd like we can schedule this for the 16th and latter it can be changed. any documentation to be insinuated or an oral presentation it maybe beneficial for the board to receive - >> i think whatever progress or conversations that end up being from the presentation as well saw 5 pages. >> 5 pages so 5 pages of briefing with exhibits and some responded opportunity from the
6:00 am
appellant? >> yes. >> so then i'll suggest you have the permit holders submit their brief at least two weeks in advance. >> who's the motion maker. >> commissioner honda. >> commissioner honda okay. and this is a continuance to july 16th correct? a public hearing has been held and it continuance 80 is to allow time the permit holder rec and park to work with the appellant on the acknowledgement of the prior historic structure pursue additional briefing is loud and 5 pages per party one